My Two Cents

Well readers, it is my birthday and what better way to spend the day than discussing the insidious marriage of racism and sexism?

I expect by now all of you have heard about the incident in Seattle in which a young woman was punched in the face by a police officer and some bystander caught the whole sordid event on videotape. Here is said video:



And here is the first article I read about it from Komo News. Don't read the comments there, seriously. It is not a productive endeavor.

There is not much I can say that hasn't been said about about this already. Melissa at Shakesville wrote a good piece about it and the comments section there is also a must read. They did a great job of weeding out trolls and racists and I think the discussion was really interesting. Today I also read a great piece by Latoya at Racialicious. She noted something that I mentioned in an argument with a friend about this as well.

As a teacher in a Chicago Public School, I often faced students who were angry with me or in general, I often saw students behave in ways that were out of control and there were even times when I feared for my own safety. I once had a student get in my face and scream at me that she hated me. But it never, ever crossed my mind to hit this child. Even though she was as tall as me and probably stronger and even though she looked like she might hit me, I never touched her. Teachers cannot hit their students. It is not permitted. Even when a student might well hurt you or did touch you, you cannot hit a student.

As Latoya said, this is because of the power dynamic that is at play in a school, especially one where all of the students are black and many of the teachers are white. This makes it even more vitally important that teachers never hurt their students. How is a student to learn, to feel safe and supported, in an environment where their physical safety is threatened by the very people put there to protect them? The answer is that they don't and that is why teachers must not use violence in their classrooms.

This same sort of logic is somehow absent when it comes to police protection. The people that I have argued so fiercely with about this incident believe that the officer had some sort of right to protect himself but they fail to recognize that he had all of the power in this situation, he could have done many things to deescalate this situation and he chose not to. He chose not to call for back up when he was surrounded by people who were seemingly hostile. He chose not to just let it go because he wasn't equipped to handle it alone. A friend argued that if he let it go others would think it is okay to jaywalk, to which I say, fine. He was not equipped to do much else and the girls (and yes, they were girls, 19 and 17) did not pose a danger to anyone. They had committed a minor traffic violation and did not possess any weapons.

I understand this girl's immediate apprehension about being stopped by an officer in the first place and her desire to flee, that is what Latoya discussed so well in her piece.

"Police are all over the city, but are reluctant to respond to crime calls in certain precincts…it’s a recipe for mistrust. In order for the police to do the best work in our communities, the relationships cannot be adversarial. Harassing people over non-violent offenses (like the jaywalking charge that led to the punching situation) is a bad use of that discretion, and one that erodes community trust."

We are in bad shape when the people who are hired by the community to protect said community are inflicting harm like this onto certain citizens at their "discretion" in the name of protection. Who was this officer protecting?

Alas, all of this has been said in the links I provided. What I really wanted to talk about here is the sexual undertone of this exchange. I brought it up in the comments section at Shakesville and I wasn't sure if it was just me, maybe I am too sensitive, maybe I look for things, etc. But others noticed it too.

That he punched her in the face is bad enough, it is obviously violent and totally uncalled for. Police have much better ways of restraining people. What bothered me just as much is the way he threw the other girl back onto the cop car and pressed himself on her, she managed to wriggle herself free and he held her arms back and groped her body to the point of actually pulling her shirt up and exposing her bra. And as bad is when he threw her down on the police car with his crotch pressed firmly against her bottom and held her down as she struggled. You could see the fear and terror on her face as this escalated and she could not get him to stop touching her. It did not look to me like she was trying to hurt him, only that she was trying to get out of his grip.

Her pleas to get him to stop touching her fell on deaf ears. The overall effect was eerily similar to sexual assault. I am sure plenty of people will say that was not his intention, I believe he might even say he was not attempting to be sexual with her, but the video does not lie and I know what I saw. I think that video would be incredibly triggering to victims of sexual assault and I can very clearly see why.

Black bodies have a long history of exploitation at the hands of white bodies. I am left to wonder would this police officer have felt it appropriate to touch, manhandle even, the bodies of two white women in broad daylight with camera-wielding witnesses? I know that if he had touched me the way he touched her I would have reacted the exact same way. I cringe at the thought of being touched that way. I am so deeply sad for that girl because I can imagine all too well what that is like.

And as this was happening how many other women and men were standing there, not in any way posing a treat to this officer, idly watching as this woman was, in my estimation, being sexually harassed and physically assaulted at the hands of someone who is supposed to be protecting her. I would like to point out again, because it hasn't been done enough, that this is a child in the eyes of the law. She is 17 years old, she cannot vote, she cannot buy cigarettes, she cannot do a whole lot of things without her parents' permission and yet this officer didn't see fit to adjust his behavior or perhaps try a more age appropriated tactic (not that what he did is appropriate at any age).

I am reminded of a story a co-worker once told me. She was hanging around outside with some friends when she was a teenager. A police officer approached them to tell them to stop loitering. Being teenagers, they were less than acquiescent, so the officer grabbed her, pushed her against the police car and threatened to arrest her. She immediately started sobbing because she was afraid and she had done nothing wrong. The officer felt badly about it and let her go. That story was just one of many I have heard from friends, co-workers and classmates that just remind me constantly that the police represent something very different to black people than they do to white people; this video is just further evidence.

I think that anyone who wants to be a police officer should have to take the Implicit Association Test first.

An Open Letter to Kristen Stewart

Dear Kristen Stewart,

You know what is like rape? RAPE. That is the only thing that is "like" rape. Being on the red carpet having your photo taken incessantly may be unpleasant for you, it may even be something you wish to never do again, but fortunately you have that option. Please remember this on future occasions. Thank you,

Cortney

The Continued Ghettoization of Women's Labor

This list of the worst paying college degrees from the Huffington Post is making its way around the web. I enjoyed reading the list of highest paying college degrees a few weeks ago as well.

I suppose nothing is terribly surprising on those lists but it is sad to see that the value of work generally done by women has not changed at all. We can intellectualize about how raising future generations of engineers is just as important as engineering itself but we passively accept that teachers and social workers make significantly less money than almost any other profession (for which they were formally educated). Seriously, look at both of those lists and it will be clear that men's work is more valued than women's work. And it is clear that the Huffington Post realizes that low paying jobs are women's work and high paying jobs are men's work based on the images they chose to accompany the text. In the article about the highest paying degrees only one out of fourteen of the people pictured appeared to be women. In the article about the lowest paying degrees six out of the eleven people pictured appeared to be women. This is no accident.


What I wonder about these articles is whether they will deter the next generation of college students from choosing social service related majors. If we are to discourage young people from going into social service professions, who is going to do that work (will it even matter with all of the social service cuts)? Moreover, who can afford to do that work? Who can afford to take out over $80,000 in student loans (seriously I know this person) to get an MSW only to find the best paying jobs in that field are in the $40,000s and that is if you can find work at all.

I don't have to be an accountant to know that that investment will never pay off.
And that is depressing because I am in that same situation only my major wasn't directly on that list.

Whats Wrong With Twitter?

I came across this New York Times op-ed piece by Maureen Dowd and I just had to say a few things about it.



First, I just hate how techno-phobic some people are. New social networking/blogging sites are an excellent way to empower people who otherwise wouldn't have the chance to make their voices heard. We don't all get our 'annoying' musings published by The New York Times, Ms. Dowd. I am sure that, mostly, that is for the best. Still, I love how equalizing the Internet can be if only because it is so easy to access.

Second, even if Twitter is "a toy for bored celebrities and high-school girls," can you please tell me what is wrong with that? I think that giving high-school girls the opportunity to speak to each other and to speak back to media is fabulous. The everyday minutia of girls' lives is forever being trivialized and if Twitter provides another space for girls (and everyone else) to communicate and to articulate their interests and desires then please, please tell me what is so awful about that.

Third, why on earth do you care that people use Twitter to grieve?
"I heard about a woman who tweeted her father’s funeral. Whatever happened to private pain?" Whatever happened to letting people grieve in the way that is most productive for them?

Domestic Violence on an International Flight

I woke up this morning and checked the news right away because we have been having some wicked winter weather here in Chicago. I teach a social justice class one day a week and wanted to see if school would be canceled today.

While perusing the Chicago Tribune site, I came across this story.

Basically a man hit his wife six times, in public, causing injuries to her face and lip. Rather than take responsibility for being abusive, he is suing United Airlines for over-serving him on the plane.

Responded United spokeswoman Jean Medina: "We believe that a lawsuit that suggests that we are somehow responsible for the consequences of a passenger's physical assault on his own wife is without any merit whatsoever."

Airlines are frequently sued for the acts of drunken passengers, typically by flight attendants or other passengers who suffered harm from an unruly traveler during a flight.

What makes this case a rarity, legal experts said, is that it was brought by a person drinking the airline's alcohol. By filing the lawsuit, the Shimamotos also risk having their private lives exposed by the airline's attorneys.

The idea that the server should have stopped serving is often accepted when the injury is to a third person, such as in a drunk-driving situation," Speta said. "Generally, the courts have not been receptive to people saying, 'I asked for the drink and you gave it to me.' "

But crafting United's defense will be tricky, legal experts said, because the case involves conflicting international and state law.

Ayisha Shimamoto's claim that she was harmed as a result of the carrier's negligence, one element of the couple's complaint, would be a likely slam-dunk if United's conduct in question had taken place in a bar, rather than on an international flight, legal experts said.

She was harmed because of the airline's negligence? No, she was harmed because she is a woman married to an abusive man. The scariest part is that the story is framed in such a way as to make it about international law when it is actually about domestic violence.

More AOL news

According to AOL, Chicago is the most stressful city in the US. Awesome.

AOL "News"

When I am procrastinating doing my homework I occasionally read the AOL homepage. They always have little snippets of intriguing news. Gets me every time. There were a few I wanted to post. Don't have a lot of time for analysis but I really wanted to share.

First, fear not sexist republican voters. Sarah Palin is really just a figurehead. Her husband Todd is actually calling all the shots.

Second, drinking breast milk seems like a fine idea but what are the feminist ethical implications of paying women for their reproductive capacities?

Third, more fun with Photoshopping magazine covers.

Disembodied Art Courtesy of David Byrne

My roommate is a serious biker. For her job (and anything else she chooses to do) she bikes about fifty miles a day! I, too, love biking but if I hit ten miles a day I'd be amazed.

Anyway, she sent me an e-mail about these new bike racks in New York City. She is excited to see such lively and colorful accoutrements just for bikers.

I wonder why a pornulated female body must be part of the city's art and biking culture? Why choose that particular form out of the thousands if not millions of alternatives? For context purposes please see Melissa McEwan's many posts on disembodied things.

If I had to lock my precious bike to this rack (no pun intended) regularly, all I'd be able to think about is how female bodies are quite literally turned into objects for others' use.

Driving is Political

I try not to watch the national news because it gets my blood boiling like nothing else. Tonight ABC World News covered soaring gas prices ($4.50 in Bucktown). They speculated that prices are raising because of increased demand in China. One reporter exclaimed "More people are driving in China everyday!" Shocking, other people in the world want to live like Americans. How dare they.

I do not own a car. I have not for over five years. Now granted I have lived in fairly large metropolitan areas, but I have not even missed it. I think that Americans rely much too heavily upon personal vehicles and that this privilege has been ideologically constructed as a necessity to increase consumption and make oil companies, and the governments in bed with them, rich. Face it, someone is getting rich off of this, that is how capitalism/neoliberalism work. The news program also alluded to the possibility of recession from these rising costs. It seems to me that if people change their lifestyles these costs wouldn't be so painful.

Frankly, I hope gas prices do keep going up. And I am not saying that because I want anyone to suffer but because I think that only under the most dire circumstances will we as Americans come up with alternatives. Oil is not a sustainable resource, this is not debatable. One day it will be gone and in the meantime it is polluting our environments and making city air almost un-breathable.

I have found biking to be a wonderful alternative. I love the wind blowing through my hair and the breeze on my face. I love cruising past cars stuck in Chicago traffic and getting everywhere faster than I do on public transit or when friends offer rides in their cars. My bike cost $40 at Working Bikes Co-operative and requires minimal maintenance. I have heard every argument in the book for car usage instead of bikes and my best argument is that I have managed for five years without a car with no trouble.

Because I love this blog and because it offers many practical tips for people who wish to reduce dependence upon their cars, I think you all should check out Chicago Bike Blog. A lot of her tips apply to folks in any city. Most importantly, check out 50 Ways to Leave Your Car. Don't let the mega-hetero-patriarchal-white-supremacist-imperialist-corporateocracy drain all of your savings and your health! Ditch your cars because it is a major political statement!

Romance Vs. Career

I desperately want to be one of these women. Or maybe that's just an effect of a messy break up. I really don't want that. And I don't really buy into the idea that they are dichotomous.

Green Bay Blogging

Still in Green Bay so I figured I'd do some local blogging.

The big controversy here is over a nativity scene located at the entrance of city hall. A Madison based group, the "Freedom from Religion Foundation," called the city on its blatant violation of the ideal of seperation of church and state.


Many folks around here, including my parents, think that the Madison group is making a big deal out of nothing because "no one around here cares!"
I am very glad that someone is finally calling the city on its violation. The nativity scene is a blatantly Christian symbol. Placing it outside of the courthouse suggests a religious bias toward Christianity which is not fair to the many other faiths that make up the population of Brown County.

To make ammends for this decision the city said that if any Jewish group wanted they could put up a menorah. Of course, Hanukkah has been over for a while now..... And that still does not help the myriad other religions that are not represented at this taxpayer funded city building.

Frankly, I too am more than a little shocked that this is such a big deal. It should be obvious that religious symbols have no place in front of a city building.

On Ron Paul's Scary Cross-Over Appeal

I am increasingly concerned about the relative popularity of republican candidate Ron Paul amongst progressive and liberal people. This Saturday I went to a peace rally and marched down the streets of downtown Chicago. Of course, such a rally was bound to be rife with people pushing presidential candidates. The ones that I saw the most of were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Hell, Ron Paul's people even had an aerial banner! The general feeling that I got from these pacifists, hippies, liberals, and general anti-war types was support for this anti-war constitutionalist. Dr. Paul is a dangerous candidate precisely because of his growing cross-over support. Here is a some of the scary stuff I found over at his campaign website:

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have already discussed my concern with his popularity amongst liberal television personalities. But I should also say that I am concerned with the depoliticization of reproductive rights issues. I did a little bit of research and had a hard time coming up with a position on women's issues and LGBT issues on the part of ALL of the candidates. Why are liberal folks turning their back on Roe v. Wade? I know it is a messy political area but we need protection now more than ever and I have to say, none of these candidates are really sounding very good to me.

Victim-Blaming on The Dr. Phil Show

Image Via

I have already mentioned that I love to watch the Dr. Phil Show. I love it precisely because he so completely embodies the enemy that I am dedicating my life to eradicating.

Anyway, last week I caught an episode about O.J. Simpson’s new book If I Did It. Now, I was only ten years old when most of the murder trial and media storm took place. So, naturally, I didn’t have much of an opinion on the situation when it occurred. However, as a grown-up feminist, I can see, quite plainly that this man was violent and abusive and because of his hyper-masculine, hyper-violent personality, he decided to teach his wife a lesson in male dominance.

And as if beating her throughout their marriage, murdering her and her friend, and facing no consequences were not bad enough, he has now decided to publish a hypothetical book about what he would have done if he had committed the murders. To which I, and probably anyone who witnessed that trial, say a loud and resounding “Ha!”

Of course he did it. That is really a moot point now because he cannot be tried again. However, the ghostwriter of the book, Pablo Fenjves, had some very interesting things to say to Dr. Phil. Fenjves maintains his belief that Simpson is guilty because of the attitude that he displayed when discussing Nicole Brown.

Fenjves told Dr. Phil that O.J.’s attitude was “If I did it, she had it coming.”

To this Dr. Phil said, O.J. is obviously guilty because he was trying to justify murdering Nicole. He then said what a tragedy it was that an innocent man had to die.

Because she was not innocent? Her friend was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but she was a bad wife so she deserved it? That was the attitude of Dr. Phil throughout the show. Now I am not sure if he was just pandering to the family of the deceased man (the one’s who actually had the book published) or if this is actually what he believes. Because of his record on women’s issues in the past, I am inclined to believe the latter.

Almost 15 years after her death and she is still being blamed. Sheesh.

The Body Poltics of Britney Spears

Image Via

For the longest time I have avoided this topic mostly out of disinterest but also because I was not sure exactly how I felt. Well the tides have turned and I MUST say something.

A few days ago one of my very close feminist friends informed me that Britney Spears had lost custody of her children and what a good thing that is. It was more than a bit disconcerting to hear someone for whom I have a great deal of respect so openly revel in the pain and suffering of a woman who lost her children.

I'll be completely honest, I have not kept up with this story so feel free to inform me if I am misstating something. But I wonder why Americans are so delighted by Britney Spears' very public destruction.

Here's what I know about Britney:
-she became a star in her early teenage years but had been in the spotlight for some time prior to that
-she [her image, likeness, etc.] is owned by a music production company
-after she became famous, this production company turned her into a sex symbol and cashed in
-she got married had two children and was in the spotlight then for her changing (i.e. not teen-aged) body
-having been in the spotlight for the entirety of her adult life she had a bit of a breakdown (very likely postpartum depression) and chopped off her hair (symbol of her feminine beauty) and became a pariah for people who expect very different behavior from their pop stars
-this and other odd (i.e. non-feminine, non-maternal) behaviors cause her parenting skills to be called into question
-her most recent stage performance was a bit of a disaster and questions about her weight began to circulate [i.e. people calling her "fat" (seriously?? her?)]
-her now ex-husband gains full custody of her two children

This is what I know.

The first thing that pops into my mind is: why do we delight so much in witnessing this young woman's destruction?

The same country that made her a star, the same people who turned her into a sex object and loved watching the sweet, blonde virgin take it all off, the same people who keep buying the magazines, watching the gossip shows and utterly invading her privacy are now stunned and simultaneously pleasured by her destruction.

Now I have never been a fan of Spears' music and I think that her body politic is extraordinarily problematic especially since she is simultaneously marketed to young girls as an idol and to men as a masturbatory fantasy. But note how I write that "she is marketed" as if she is no longer an independent entity but a piece of public property. Not long ago one of my friends and I got into a debate about whether Spears' chose this life path. My friend argued that she deserves what is happening to her because she chose to become a part of the public domain. But remember, she was but a child when she made that choice and she hardly could have anticipated the hyper-sexualization and invasion that would come along with that "choice." Further, does anyone really deserve that kind of dehumanization?

Spears most certainly is owned by a production company who is making a nice tidy profit off of all of this "self-" destruction. One has to wonder if the motives behind her sexy rise to fame and her shocking downfall are not just another part of the scheme to make spectacle-driven Hollywood producers filthy rich at her expense. I for one am skeptical as to whether or not Spears even exists. She would not need to for all of this hubbub to be going on. Just the idea of her is enough.

So I ask that you all challenge the pleasure you receive from watching Spears' destruction and ask why seeing a woman publicly lose her marriage and her children and quite likely suffer from a mental illness is so delightful? It is sickening and, frankly, quite telling.

Another Reason to Abolish Marriage

After my long hiatus I have returned to my blog. I just needed a short break before graduate school starts.

I believe that feministing covered this article (or one similar to it) but my partner sent it to me and I feel the need to comment.

Researchers at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. and North Carolina State University in Raleigh discovered that married men do less housework that live-in boyfriends. This could suggest either one of two things. Either gender roles really are not innate but are rather socially constructed in cultural institutions like marriage. OR couples who do not buy into oppressive social institutions also do no buy into stereotypical gender roles.

I am sure that it is actually a combination of these two factors but it has brightened my day either way. Marriage is a heterosexist, patriarchal, misogynist institution and studies like this one only provide further evidence that marriage is a mindset and women pay the price (as we have for thousands of years).

I'm with Jessica Valenti. I will never wed.

Racism and misogyny reunited again.

A professor of mine just e-mailed me the above cartoon. Apparently, it caused quite a stir in Jacksonville, Florida.

I understand that editorial cartoons are often sarcastic and call attention to problems by over-dramatizing them but this seems a bit over the top even for the editorial pages.

Having done a good deal of research on hip-hop culture and on its general misogyny, I can say that the word "ho" is far from uncommon, I can even understand how this cartoonist meant to sarcastically draw attention to it. Where he loses me is in his ignorance of location politics.

A critique as blatant as this needs more sensitivity and more attention to the voice of the cartoonist. In a piece like this his race, class, gender, ethnicity, and more are relevant. I wonder how often little girls are called 'hos' in hip hop culture. I suppose it is not a huge stretch, but does this cartoonist really have the authority to say that?

The cartoonist was critiquing a so-called "no-snitching" culture. Hip-hop certainly plays a role in perpetuating a mistrust of authority but one also has to ask are authorities always deserving of trust? In a community where police abuse is rampant mistrust seems natural. Perhaps a cartoon about police brutality would make more of a statement about the "no-snitching" mentality.

I also wonder why the use of the word "ho" was even necessary here. The cartoonist might be calling attention to the fact that young people are increasingly influenced by the imagery of hip-hop and that they are perpetuating mistrust after hearing their favorite rappers talk about it. But, again, what does calling a little girl a "ho" have to do with any of that?

The use of language in this cartoon is just plain racist. The word "ho" was unnecessary and probably misused, a mistake an ignorant white guy might easily make. I think that Isaiah Rumlin was right on when he said that if this paper has more African American staff making these big decisions, this cartoon never would have been published. It is something to consider.

Murder Chic: Misogyny is High Fashion

Dismembered bodies, blood, murder, starvation, mental illness, battery, sexual assault and… death. Sound sexy? According to Vogue magazine and America’s Next Top Model high fashion and brutalized women go hand in hand. I have written at length before about this America’s Next Top Model spread. All of these women were made up to look as though they were brutally murdered and then were praised for their ability to look sexy. At the time I held out hope that it was just a passing fad but then Italian Vogue released these photos (to glowing praise no less).

When did murder, rape and misery become high fashion? I cannot look at these images without wondering ‘how did these women end up beaten, abused, and murdered?’ Actually, I know how. According to Jean Kilbourne in her text Can’t Buy My Love, more than one-third of women slain in this country die at the hands of their husbands or boyfriends. Though the photographers may not intend for them to be, these images are very political. They are representative of a greater cultural illness.

I can sense the “Relax, it’s just a picture” response that I am sure to get. The problem is that these images do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in a cultural climate of intense anxiety and backlash. Backlash against women’s movement into the workforce, backlash against women’s sexual agency, and backlash against women’s bodily sovereignty. These images exist within the context of white-supremacist, capitalist, patriarchy and that means that they are saturated with meaning.

I know that even when I am not conscious of it, I am always thinking about my safety. I know that there are some places that I cannot walk alone and I know that there are some articles of clothing that make me a target for male violence. The women over at feministing call it a rape schedule. We know where to walk, what to wear, and when to have our keys in our hands. We know to lock the doors behind ourselves and we know that elevators, parking garages, and stairwells are places to avoid. We are constantly aware of the threat of male violence and images like those in Vogue or America’s Next Top Model contribute to that anxiety. They keep fresh in women’s minds the logical result of male violence. This type of emotional and psychological terrorism serves the very specific purpose of keeping women in their place through the constant threat of violence, specifically sexualized violence.

Further, these images contribute to the normalization and fetishization of violence against women. When we are inundated with images of annihilated, abused and murdered women we become desensitized to it in media and in real life. These texts contribute to the dehumanization of women. They are insane! They enjoy being beaten! They are not real people! The America’s Next Top Model shoot presents women being murdered in a variety of ways. One woman is pushed off of a rooftop, one is poisoned, one is stabbed, one is drowned and wrapped in plastic, one is pushed down a flight of stairs, one is strangled, electrocuted, shot in the head, decapitated, and perhaps most horrifying one has her organs stolen. Her individual parts are literally more valuable than her person as a whole.

As I was researching images for this piece, the sheer volume of images that I saw overwhelmed me. The advertisement posters for the new movie Captivity are an even more brazen example of this normalization of violence toward woman. Can you imagine driving your mini-van filled with children past this image every day? What would you tell your daughters? I wonder how people can continue to tell me that these things have no effect. How do we look at images like these and feel nothing? The trend of abuse toward women as fashion is terrifying and yet not really surprising. It is a slightly more obvious version of the dismembered female bodies that we see in mainstream advertisements every single day.

After all of that how can we even pretend to be surprised when a story like this crops up? These boys live in a society that devalues women to such an extent that gazing at their corpses is high fashion! There is no other conclusion for young men to draw than that women’s bodies are (a) their property and (b) ultimately valueless. These young men are perfect products of their society and, sadly, as Kilbourne’s statistic proves, they are not alone.

Why Do I Watch the News?

This story about increased narcissism in today's youth (aka 'generation me') was prominently featured on NBCs Nightly News program (quite awhile ago now). Not surprisingly NBC willingly blames permissive parenting (read: mothering) that gained momentum in the 1980s (backlash period) for this trend toward narcissism in young people. They blatantly ignore the most obvious reason for this so-called trend: capitalism! Obsession with appearance and insecurity is necessary to encourage consumers to buy more products for self-improvement. Not to mention the fact that self obsession distracts citizens from greater socio-political problems. Blaming narcissism on parenting sounds a little too convenient to me.